That is a great pic.
Is the 5D mkII still okay? (feature film)
- Thread starter octagon
- Start date
That is a great pic.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
As with many things in life very very subjective. I LOVE the slightly soft slightly warm look of the MK2. If I could afford any camera I wanted would I use it on every project, well no, but I have gotten great use out of it and plan on probably still using it for some projects 2 years from now.
Don't feel discouraged. It's a forum of filmmakers, people will always feel like they have to weigh in beyond the scope of the actual question. I think they mean well, best to just sift through that or pass it up.
If I were going to choose between an MKII and a GH2 for a low/no budget feature (Been there, going back for the second ride) with my experience now, I'd have to ask myself if I could also grab the best glass that you can get for a GH2, or if I could manage to get a Hot Rod PL mount an some PL's. I think the GH2[hacked] is a great little camera and suits the purpose, but it is not very awesome in tight spaces. You will want fast AND wide glass.
12/1.6, 17/0.95, 25/0.95. Preferably the 12 and the 25, you could do plenty with that. If you can't get those, then I'd have to say an MKII or even a D600 (just because it's newer, and you can buy it today) for what you're going to to do. Sometimes the distortion on wides really irks me with the GH2, and sometimes it's fine. You'll have to figure out how to get the look you want out of an MKII or D600 of course, but they're okay options.
I don't like the look of either, personally. Always makes me feel like my eyes are going bad, no detail... yuck.
Only thing with the Nikon's being stuck with AF Mount glass. In that case, couldn't vote for anything but Zeiss ZF's.
I'm with you on just getting it done. It's stressful as heck and sometimes feels like it's not worth it, but mostly just fun.
Good luck on the project and make sure to post over in User Films about it.
Adam J McKay
Veteran
+10000000
Adam J McKay
Veteran
I also second or third the motion for shooting on the 60D which you own, and getting a hold of some great lenses and lights. I recently received a government grant for equipment to help foster a media industry in Northern, Ontario (thanks Canada). And rather than go out and buy a RED I decide to invest almost 70 percent of the money in lighting and grip equipment. A because it is going to retain value better than any camera, B I can rent a camera and get it shipped a lot easier than lights, and C I would rather have control of lighting while shooting on a 60D then have no control over lighting and be shooting on a RED. There have been numerous award winning films shot on DSLR's the one thing all of them have in common is first and foremost they are great stories. Celebration, a renowned DOGMA film that literally started the video revolution was shot on horrible DV cams. And the cinematographer became the go to DP for Danny Boyle because of it. Having finished my first feature film, I can say first hand that it is not an easy descision and you always could use more and better, but at some point you just need to bite the bullet and get it done and tell a good story.
Some examples: This film was shot on the 5Dmk2 and was recently released as a criterion Bluray. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GYFIwAURH4
There was another thread posted on this film as well, it was shot on the 7D but 90 percent of people who see it, you know the audience, would never ever ever ever ever be able to tell. But why should they? https://vimeo.com/28562051#at=0
EDIT: I dont know if that was a rant or helpful or not, but alas it is here.
Some examples: This film was shot on the 5Dmk2 and was recently released as a criterion Bluray. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GYFIwAURH4
There was another thread posted on this film as well, it was shot on the 7D but 90 percent of people who see it, you know the audience, would never ever ever ever ever be able to tell. But why should they? https://vimeo.com/28562051#at=0
EDIT: I dont know if that was a rant or helpful or not, but alas it is here.
Oller Visuals
Well-known member
5dmk2 has a sharper image than the APS-C models. As long as you don't do deep focus shots and using the depth-of-field to your advantage, the resolution out of 5D can be intercut with 35mm film (and has been done on several occasions; The Avengers, Act of Valor and more).
New_Zealand
Veteran
Bite the bullet and get the 5d mkiii
Oller Visuals
Well-known member
Or wait for 6D. Apart from the lack of a headphone jack, it seems to be indentical on the video side of things.
I believe this statement is 99.99999999999999% false. The only advantage 5dMKII has is less noise and shallower dof. MKIII is sharper but still no where close to 1080p, but for $3k I would get two hacked GH2's with nice glass......
maranfilms
Veteran
I honestly don't know which is sharper, full frame or APS-C, what I do know, after using the gh2 for a while, I cant shoot video with my t3i (and great glass) because it looks out of focus compared to the gh2. To my eyes there's that much difference. But of course, I still prefer the t3i for stills. I was at an air show the other day, I had the canon, was shooting stills, then decided to get some vid. When I reviewed the footage, it was laughable. Moire everywhere. I prefer my ancient xha1 for video over the t3i. I cant deal with moire on that level anymore, it's disgusting.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
The 60D is more than suitable and honestly, it's going to be easier to work with in terms of focus depending upon what your setups are.
Spend the budget on actors, wardrobe, makeup, production design, and set dressing, instead of a camera that's maybe 5% "better."
Don't be so sure the video will be identical. It's a different sensor.
Oller Visuals
Well-known member
Actually, I read it's slightly better noise in low-light than 5dmk3. Think it was the Canons japanese website... don't quote me for it.
Anyhow, the All-I compression is shown in the promo.
nikon_obsessed
Active member
NEVER EVER shoot dslr at sharpness zero and then sharpen in post.
Shoot a +2 sharpness video with VAF-5D2 and zero sharpness sharpened in post video with VAF-5D2, compare the results. The post sharpened image is hideous-artifacts,noise,etc.
Get it in camera and leave it.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I must ask how you are post-sharpening? Normal practice is sharpen in post, not in camera, but there are different methods of post sharpening and some are better than others.
nikon_obsessed
Active member
Normal practice. Says who, from who. A review video? That video? I've read that some guy even return the MKIII only after a day and said he'll stick to his MKII bcos he found MKIII soft, before the review video. Must have shot it at sharpness zero. Didn't have this problem, mine was at sharpness 2 and IT'S SHARP. Left it as it is, bingo.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Says me, after four years using 5D2 and 28 years making films professionally. Says every photography tutorial I've ever read. Says Stu Maschwitz, Vincent Laforet, Philip Bloom, you get the idea...
I'm not disputing your findings, just seeking clarification as to how you got there. Which is why I asked how you sharpened in post. Simple question.
No way. Not possible. I've shot with DSLR's about three years (7d, 5dmkII/III, D800) and the Canons at + anything sharpness are not sharp. They are just overly sharpened non-detailed images. Only the 5dmarkIII works pretty well when shot with no sharpening and then added in post. I've also received a lot of Canon shooters material who have insisted that they have sharpening in cam and they always look bad. Maybe you are one of those shooters? Stop doing that, please.